Topic: IGN Promises Rev Specs: Evening 3/29/06

[MysticGohan]

hehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehehe mwhahahahahhahaha, Excuse me, I had to get that out. While Matt can sometimes be a lil eccentric, more often than not I find that he's entertaining for doing the dumbest thing's a journalist/Editor can possibly do. I would take everything about the Rev's specs with a grain of salt until a source is either announced or Nintendo themselves reveals the OFFICIAL SPEC Sheets

While Matt may work for a somewhat Reputable site ( and I use that term losely ) I doubt this is all there is to Rev, if it's even official. I'm inclined to believe this is somekind of an early April Fools, we'll see I suppose. Matt to me has never been one to be realiable, so let's see if PGC can come up with anything. So far nothing's been posted on any realiable sites including PGC, I'm sure the staff might have some knowledge on Matt's inane specs that he's spewing forth. Only time will tell.

[Mario]

Quote
However Nintendo fans who bought a Cube as their main console were justifiably a little disappointed.

UGH, please don't speak for all Nintendo fans. Cube is a f'ing great main console for me, PS2 is still played as my secondary console only because GC lacks real racers, but every system has a hole somewhere.

[BiLdItUp1]

OK. Here's my statement, based on skimming the thread.

We have stop inserting these irrelevant Intel vs. AMD comparisons to uphold Nintendo, since the differences between AMD and Intel philosophy isn't really analogous to the whole 'RISC' vs. 'CISC' thing. In any case, much of the RISC vs. CISC thing was spewed out by Apple's marketing corps, and now with the Intel switch, we are finding out just how far those fabrications went, especially with the G4 but even with the G5. So let's just stop with that nonsense, because none of us can really debate about it (we have to rely on Anandtech or Tom's or whatever - certainly not 'Macworld').

Also, irrelevant - pointing out how PCs with higher clocks than the GC couldn't even run DC-calibur graphics. There's so much more to consider, because PCs aren't built with gaming in mind, and they have to run a friggin' OS (and that OS is usually Windows...). Game consoles, even multi-purpose ones like the Xbox/360 and PS2/3, are designed around gaming (in comparison with generic PCs).

Still Dirk's reasoning is wrong:

Quote
I really don't get it. If those numbers turn out to be true, regardless of the architecture, it's basically an Xbox.

Dude, the GameCube was in many respects (though obviously not all) as powerful as the Xbox. If the Rev has spec'ed up as much as they claim, it should blow the Xbox out of the water in terms of graphics. In any case, nobody knows specs or what they mean - I don't think anyone, besides idiotic fanboys and probably some of the inane 'hardware dudes', will know or care what they are. I'm not just talking about non-gamers - casual gamers are usually clueless to this BS.

As for your other comments about Matt - cut the dude some slack. What he (and Nintendo) mean is that they Nintendo isn't going to compete as far as cutthroat graphical ability is concerned. I'm pretty sure that when Iwata was asked recently about what Microsoft had done wrong with the 360 launch, he said explicitly that he wouldn't point it out because it would be helping the enemy. As to whether this is the correct strategy or not to take (regarding the graphics) only time will tell. But don't presume to say that noone will buy a Rev because 'it's an Xbox.' You're only focusing on one aspect, and are furthermore comparing Apples to Oranges.

In any case, it's quite possible the numbers aren't final (if they're even real). I remember the GC specs were changed at the last minute also (PPC was spec'ed up 80MHz, Flipper was spec'ed down 40Mhz)  

[Ian Sane]

"UGH, please don't speak for all Nintendo fans. Cube is a f'ing great main console for me, PS2 is still played as my secondary console only because GC lacks real racers, but every system has a hole somewhere."

Well I was referring more to fans in context of the "Nintendo fans are the only ones complaining" argument.  Nintendo fans have more reason to complain then gamers who just like Nintendo but don't buy Nintendo consoles as their main console.

[Infernal Monkey]

Obviously Nintendo is doomed.


Again.

[jasonditz]

I'm hoping if that RAM spec is true they leave part of the Flash RAM available as swap space or something.

[Flames_of_chaos]

IMO screw the spec numbers, I wonder why people are so obsessed with them as we all know rev has no 720p or 1080p so these supposed "low" specs shouldn't be a problem since it seems like Rev doesn't need a lot of resources to be used just to keep up a constant frame rate on the HD resolutions. I also think it was a good idea for Rev's chip sets to be an extention of gamecube's chip set. Why? because developers will have a leg up and a shorter learning curve so that they can theoretically make games faster with a possible less upkeep.

Also remember how some developers bitched how sony built a dramatically different and a possible foreign architecture to them which will obviously spike up their costs and probably game costs. I personally think its sad how we obsess over spec numbers, and realistically we should only worry about games and game quality. I believe that this is like the DS except on a home console front screw the specs and bring on a radical new experiance its admittant that the DS has some antiquated technology but its really a vehicle to the touch screen gameplay or gives a new dimension to the game with the 2nd screen, the Rev will obviously be a vehicle to the controller and maybe they focused on the technology of the controller mechanics so that there isn't any latency from the physical action and then to get it transmitted to the action in the game.

To me this will be like a comparison of Rev vs 360 and PS3  to the DS and PSP,  did we care that the DS was under powered compared to PSP?  Not really Why? A lot of killer aps and new experiances are on the DS compared to the ports and antiquated(and some under developed) game mechanics that are on the PSP. Will there be dud games? Yeah, sure some innovative games might be duds but hey atleast they tried something new and different.  But look at how many duds are on the PSP just because the developers saw it as a port machine and essentially treat it as one (case and point EA, capcom and in some cases Sony games).  Did the PSP's multimedia capabilites sway our purchase away from a DS? Answer: Not really since there are so many different machines that could do those multimedia funtions much better and are cheaper than the PSP.

[Artimus]

I feel bad for Matt. He's been one of the most constant supports of the Rev and yet he gets slack for posting these numbers. In the latest mailbag he flat out says he thinks the Rev will be a huge success. He callsd developers who use the shell lazy, he has never said one bad thing about Nintendo's new direction. The guy is an admitted graphics-whore and he hasn't criticized this decision by Nintendo ONCE.

[RiskyChris]

The problem is he flat out compares the specs to the xbox, which is misleading!

[Jensen]

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Physics seemed to work well enough on the last generation of games, this generation will be fine too, just the Rev won't be able to cram 1 million rubber duckies in your bath like the PS3 can, or bounce that many ping pong balls or whatever.

What GameCube games uses physics? The only gameplay element that I can think of that features (non-character) physics is a couple of bridges in Wind Waker.  

It would be nice to see rag-doll physics in RE4 (though, even without it, the animation is quite good)  I love all the physical simulation in Half-Life 2, and I think it could only be improved with a Revolution controller.



 

[Magik]

If it wasn't Matt that did the comparision, someone else would have.

For goodness sake, just get over with it.  It's absolutely mindblowing how so many people have overreacted to these specs.  Heck, a lot of them are the same people who claim they don't matter.

In the end, all that matters is how developers utilize the hardware.  All the high-end specs mean nothing if the developers don't know how to use it.

[Smash_Brother]

All they need to do is show a commercial which has video of what's happening in a game and what a person is doing with a Revmote.

The Commercial
20 seconds of video footage where we see the hands of the player and the hands of the character in the game from a first-person perspective, the game on top, the controller on the bottom.

Both images freeze and the Revmote and the handle of the character's sword both flash, indicating that they are in sync.

Then, the game starts moving, the player is attacked by a skeleton. The player slashes the sword horizontally through the skeleton's chest (skeleton, no blood). The skeleton falls in half, and as the view from the player shifts downward, the player then pantomimes driving the sword into the skull of the fallen skeleton as it thrashes around: it screams and dies. Then the player is attacked by several stone golems. The player hits a button and the character's hands switch from a sword to a mighty hammer. The character then proceeds to smash the stone golems into rubble, blocking their attacks when necessary.

Then, a huge demon shows up in the skies above it flies down on massive red wings and begins hurling balls of fire at the player, the player dodges one and then presses another button to raise a shield to block the second. The demon dives at the player, as the player charges the demon, jumps raises the sword to stab the demon's face, and...cut to Revolution logo, end commercial.

That's all they need. Every gamer in the goddamn world will want one with a simple commercial which showcases exactly how insanely cool the Revmote can be.

[Jensen]

Quote
Originally posted by: thejeek

2: Maintained same CPU to GPU clock ratio despite different rates of development in CPU and GPU technology in last 5 years
3: Why have 24MB of 1-T RAM plus a second block of 64MB of 1-T RAM? If they're really just stretching the GC then surely they'll  have 24MB of faster 1-T plus more DRAM or they'll have more than 24MB of 1-T in a single block. Two blocks of different sizes is bonkers - what underlying manufacturing constraint would lead to that?

I expect the Revolution to have disappointing specs - they may even be as disappointing as the ones IGN 'leaked', but the particular 'specs' we have here are bullshit

The CPU to GPU clock ratio and the two blocks of ram are to maintain compatibility with Gamecube games.  Just underclock the CPU and GPU, and the Revolution is now a Gamecube.

If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power.    Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.

[jasonditz]

There's no reason you'd have to underclock the CPU and GPU at the exact same percent.

[Jensen]

Quote
Originally posted by: jasonditz
There's no reason you'd have to underclock the CPU and GPU at the exact same percent.

How do you know there is no reason?  Perhaps because the GPU and CPU share ram, they need to be synchronized more tightly than in PCs.  Maybe the CPU and GPU won't be underclocked.   I'm not a hardware engineer for Nintendo,  so I can't say for sure, but it seems to be the simplist way to do things.

[GoldenPhoenix]

I suggest you guys read Matt's comments in the mailbag, I think he does a good job of defending what this means in a positive way!

[jasonditz]

I would tend to think they won't be physically underclocking the system to emulate a Gamecube for backwards compatibility. I mean, I don't know for certain how people are developing Cube titles, but it seems the days of programming on such a low level that you are dependent on the physical clock speed being a certain amount ended decades ago. I just don't see Nintendo popping a version of MoSlo on the Rev and physically making it a Cube.

[BlackNMild2k1]

Whay are you making me go to IGN? why not just quote him here?

Matt says:

Quote
Thanks for the letter. I'm going to take a deep breath and try to run through this. Let's start with the similarities between GameCube and Revolution. According to Revolution developers, Nintendo's new console shares similar CPU and GPU architectures to GameCube. The new clock rate figures we revealed are almost exactly 1.5 times more powerful than those for Nintendo's current generation system. I mean, if you were to take a calculator and multiple the CPU and GPU speeds on GameCube by 1.5, you would end up with the MHz figures we posted for Revolution. But that doesn't mean the console as a whole is only 1.5 times more powerful. There are other considerations, including RAM and overall bandwidth, which play important roles in the final equation.

We posted these specs because they are newsworthy and it's our job to bring readers the latest in Revolution developments. Some hardcore fans are really upset that we chose to file our report, but we make no apologies for doing what we're paid to do.

Unfortunately, though, some people have really bashed the console based on our report, which is unfair. I want to be clear to readers that many Revolution games will look positively beautiful. There are some important factors to remember when thinking about the console - and you won't find these considerations in any tech spec piece. First off, the machine will be roughly twice as powerful as GameCube, a system whose games have set graphical benchmarks. Twilight Princess, Metroid Prime, Resident Evil 4, Rogue Squadron - these are very pretty games. Imagine what smart developers will be able to do with twice the horsepower and, just as importantly, double the memory. On top of that, studios have had five years to come to grips with the GameCube architecture. They know what they're doing on the console. And Revolution is an extension of that. First generation Revolution games have the potential to look as good as sixth generation GameCube efforts. I find that possibility extremely intriguing.

I have a 50" plasma screen hanging on my living room wall. I have a 30" LCD on my dining room wall. And I have an HD CRT in my bedroom. I'm a technical guy. I like high-definition graphics. I am going home tonight to play Oblivion on Xbox 360. I am, you could say, fully emerged in the so-called "HD era" of videogames. And yet, I'm promising you that you're going to be impressed with the visuals in some of the Revolution games on the horizon. I guess for now you'll just have to trust me on that point.

I rarely leave home without my Nintendo DS Lite. Meanwhile, my Sony PSP has been collecting dust for months. I bring this up to illustrate my final and most important comment. Graphics are integral to me, but gameplay is king. And where gameplay is concerned, Revolution has the potential horsepower of five Xbox 360s. When you read our spec pieces, keep this point in mind and have a little faith in Nintendo to deliver the goods.

now that wasn't so hard

[KDR_11k]

When you're a Nintendo fan you don't want to buy another console.

No, that's only when you're a fanboy. Fan status only indicates supporting something, not rejecting the alternatives.

IMO screw the spec numbers, I wonder why people are so obsessed with them as we all know rev has no 720p or 1080p so these supposed "low" specs shouldn't be a problem since it seems like Rev doesn't need a lot of resources to be used just to keep up a constant frame rate on the HD resolutions.

Em, do you understand which specs are affected by a change in resolution and which ones aren't (and especially to which deegree)? RAM takes only a minor hit* from a change in resolution, the GPU's fillrate cares but the rest not so much and the CPU doesn't even know what resolution we're talking about.

If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power. Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.

1. The XCircle has a generic emulator but it won't run games that aren't certified as working.
2. Explain the PS2, please. It's not impossible to make a new chip that can handle everything the old one did and more, especially when you've got the same manufacturer working on it (PC CPUs are compatible with each other, for example). Using the same architecture after five years just results in your system being comparable to a handheld.

Overall these "1.5" specs would be too low, no amount of "but the Megahurtz myth isn't true!" can change that. He claimed it uses the same architecture as the GC and even if it didn't, the difference is never THIS big. Imagine Nintendo's follow up to the N64 was as powerful as the DS. It's like how horsepower doesn't necessarily translate into faster cars but a 20 HP car won't be in the same league as a 100HP one no matter how you look at it.

*= Minor for the PS3 or XCircle, if those specs are true it is indeed major for the Rev.

[thejeek]

Quote
The CPU to GPU clock ratio and the two blocks of ram are to maintain compatibility with Gamecube games. Just underclock the CPU and GPU, and the Revolution is now a Gamecube.

If the architecture was changed much at all, the GC would have to be emulated, requiring a lot more power. Despite being several times faster than the original Xbox, the 360 can't natively run any original Xbox games, or even support them through a generic emulator.

Maybe but I don't buy it. In particular, the northbridge could handle any memory address translation required to recreate the GC memory map so I don't see the need for segmented memory (which developers are united in their contempt for). As for needing an emulator - I'd imagine that the CPU + GPU would support a superset of the operations provided by the original GC parts, irrespective of how much faster the Revolution parts run. My suspicion is that either these specs are from a rush-job dev-kit and not representative of final hardware or are simply invented by someone with no imagination and an axe to grind...

[wandering]

Quote
Imagine Nintendo's follow up to the N64 was as powerful as the DS.

...except that the ds is less powerful than the n64 in some areas, and almost certainly not twice as powerful as the n64 overall.

Personally, I'm expecting the rev to be GameCube plus in terms of graphics. Metriod Prime 3 will be Metroid Prime plus massive environments. Pikmin Rev will be Pikmin plus thousands of enemies on screen. Etc. Would that be so bad?

[KDR_11k]

and almost certainly not twice as powerful as the n64 overall.

Neither is this "Revolution". Well, okay, it beats the N64 but it's not twice as powerful as the GC.

Metriod Prime 3 will be Metroid Prime plus massive environments. Pikmin Rev will be Pikmin plus thousands of enemies on screen. Etc. Would that be so bad?

No, that wouldn't be bad at all but these specs wouldn't even allow THAT.

[Nephilim]

Be interesting to see how far the tech that nintendo is using has come, the tech nintendo used 5years should work to max by now (example amd burton 2200 compared to burton 3200)
normally when people use a new architecture, which being new tech normal gets outdated in a month by them finding a way to push it and a newer version
Instead I fully expect Rev to be pushed to the limit

[Ian Sane]

I don't get why anyone is complaining about Matt comparing the specs to the Xbox.  Most of us aren't very technical.  If you just give us a number without any frame of reference we won't know what it means.  So it just makes sense to compare the specs to other consoles to give an idea of where the Rev fits.  If you want to know what the specs are then you want to know how they compare with the Xbox 360.  You want to know how they compare to the Cube.  And you want to know how they compare to the last generation and the Xbox is a good example for that since it had the "best" specs of the last gen.

That's what I wanted to know.  I was very happy to find that IGN had already done the comparison for me and someone else didn't have to.  It's also good that IGN did it because then the comparison is going to be more accurate.  Someone on a forum might not have the correct information for the older consoles.  I can feel confident that IGN would have that data.  Plus since the website that revealed the specs did the comparison we have one universal comparison to reference.  Had people on different forums done the comparison we might have numerous different results.

[Jensen]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k

2. Explain the PS2, please. It's not impossible to make a new chip that can handle everything the old one did and more, especially when you've got the same manufacturer working on it (PC CPUs are compatible with each other, for example). Using the same architecture after five years just results in your system being comparable to a handheld.

The PS2 has a secondary chip/CPU to run playstation 1 games.   Kinda like the DS has a second CPU that is also used for GBA games.